[oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST?

[Arthur Ryman]

Dave and Team,

RDF experts will tell you Turtle is a much better RDF format that RDF/XML 
and they are correct. However, the role of RDF at OSLC is primarily as a 
data model that we keep in the background. We want OSLC services to be 
implemented in a wide variety of technologies and therefore OSLC should 
not require the use of any RDF-specific implementation technologies. 

Similarly, a Web UI expert will tell you JSON is a much format for 
resources than XML and they are correct since browsers have built-in 
JavaScript parsers. However, OSLC services are not just for driving Web 
UIs.

Most application developers will tell you that XML is fine as a resource 
format because virtually all programming languages have XML parsers. We 
have therefore provided guidelines for formatting RDF/XML so that it looks 
more or less like vanilla XML.

A main goal of OSLC is collaboration between disparate tools. We can take 
a big step in that direction by nailing down at least one resource format 
that everyone agrees to implements.  The only viable candidate is RDF/XML.

My vote is therefore to keep the status quo, i.e. all OSLC services MUST 
support at least RDF/XML. This reduces implementation expense and promotes 
interoperability.

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE


Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management

IBM Software, Rational

Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063
Twitter | Facebook | YouTube







From:
Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com>
To:
oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>
Date:
05/11/2010 10:27 AM
Subject:
[oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST?
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Sorry to raise this old issue again, but I've been getting some new
feedback that the Core spec should not be so prescriptive (or is it
proscriptive) about RDF/XML representation. I captured this feedback
in a new issue on the issues page:

OPEN Consensus among RDF experts seems to be that RDF/XML is not the
best representation for RDF, so why do we mandate it as a MUST in the
Core spec. In reality, most OSLC workgroups will probably make RDF/XML
a MUST, but perhaps we should leave that up to them. Here are two
alternatives: (DaveJohnson, 05/11/2010)
      * Option #1 - say this: OSLC services SHOULD provide RDF/XML
representations for all resources and MAY provide Turtle, JSON or Atom
representations.
      * Option #2 - say this: OSLC services SHOULD provide an RDF
serialization, either RDF/XML or Turtle, and MAY provide JSON or Atom
representations.
      * *Response* pending... (DaveJohnson 05/11/2010)

As always, feedback, comments, etc. are most welcome.

Thanks,
Dave


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prescriptive
"that prescribes; giving directions or injunctions"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proscriptive
"outlawry, interdiction, or prohibition"

_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net